The specific question is about getting kickbacks as a surgeon using a medical device, and was originally asked on Quora. The explanation to the question (posted by the asker) said,
“The department of justice has investigated conflicts of interest, and the Pittsburgh Post Gazette has published on the topic. To quote from the gazette:
Payments to other Pittsburgh area physicians include:
â€¢ The Orthopaedic Group of Pittsburgh received $75,000 to $100,000 this year from Smith & Nephew, and two of its doctors, Ari Pressman and Allan Tissenbaum, received individual fees. Smith & Nephew reported paying the same range of fees to Carnegie Mellon University, and to Carnegie Mellon professor Dr. Jeffrey O. Hollinger, a bone tissue regeneration expert.
â€¢ Biomet has a relationship with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, through Dr. Freddie H. Fu and Dr. Christopher Harner, paying $75,000 to $100,000.
â€¢ DePuy’s largest payment went to Dr. Lawrence Crossett, a UPMC surgeon who has received $250,000 to $275,000. On Dec. 6, he’s scheduled to perform two knee replacement surgeries, which will be broadcast over the Internet by DePuy and viewed by doctors.
â€¢ Zimmer, the largest of the joint manufacturers, paid out the most to Pittsburgh doctors, $1.16 million through Oct. 31.”
Regrettably, this is a relatively small fraction of the total physicians, giving the impression that most physicians have these conflicts of interest. Fortunately, the department of justice’s investigation has helped curtail these conflicts of interest. Having said that, if you discovered the night before your procedure that your surgeon has such a conflict, would you proceed with your surgical procedure or would you cancel it? Assume that the procedure is elective, not emergent.
I think there are various caveats to the question being asked, and perhaps, a different way of asking the question that can help the patient make better decisions about whether to stay with the surgeon or find another doctor:
Questions that came to my mind were:
- Does the surgeon opt to cut when there is no clear benefit to surgery or when another therapy would give as good of a result?
- Does the surgeon opt for one device over another device and is this decision based on a kickback or is it based on clinical data that suggests a benefit for the patient’s profile?
- Is the surgeon an inventor or co-inventor of the device?*
Conflict of interest comes to light when surgeon has mostly a financial incentive to choose one device or another or to recommend surgery over nonsurgical alternative if there is no clear clinical benefit or if the recommendation introduces new side effects to the patient.
The last point that I marked with * warrants discussion because this is not so “clear cut” a conflict of interest as the first 2 bullets. In devices the physician may be an inventor or coinventor and then licenses the technology or device to a company.
Even though the physician may have a conflict of interest – by receiving royalty payments for example – the physician is also the best expert on the technology that s/he has invented, so the choice to go for one’s own device may have less to do with a kickback and more to do with the physician’s belief in the invention’s efficacy/benefit.
Here’s a link to an article a while back (and how I got the “mostly royalties” impression) from WSJ when device companies had to post what they’d paid to orthos – although the asker rightly pointed that that the medical device company engineers are probably the majority of inventors to the technology rather than the MDs themselves.
Yet there’s also the argument made by Andy Lemke on Quora (in the comments section) that a doctor who serves as consultants to several companies must know his/her stuff since s/he is so sought after by device companies, so it’s not necessarily going to hurt that physician’s integrity in the eyes of the patient.